Liam Ferguson: Concerns over cutting back therapy sessions for refugees are misplaced

The federal government has capped mental health sessions for refugees at 10 hours a year. Photo by GEOFF ROBINS / AFP / Getty Images

Article content

The Canadian government’s recent cut to mental health services for migrants has some progressive professionals criticizing the decision. They argue that the remaining funded hours per year are not enough for migrants to “heal from their trauma.” There are two questions that should be asked. The first is why professionals such as psychologists and social workers are concerned about who receives funding for their services. The second is why the Canadian government is funding the services at all.

Article content

Article content

One answer to the first question is that the professionals in question are political activists masquerading as psychologists and social workers. This is evident by the statement from a Toronto-based therapist that his first reaction was “disappointment and confusion.” Disappointment and confusion about limiting government handouts to migrants is hardly the position professionals should be expected to have. This statement highlights the ever-present issue of certain types of professionals using their work to hide their political activism. A professional focused solely on their work has little concern for things outside of the quality of their work.

Article content

Article content

Article content

A second answer is that services that are publicly funded make a minimum level of demand for that profession more likely. Looking to the recent surge in migration numbers, it follows why some professionals take issue with the recent cut. From 2021 onwards, there have been 205,307 refugee claims accepted by the federal government. Based on the refugee numbers and the typical political activism of some professions, it is obvious why they have taken issue with cuts to services. They seek to not be at the mercy of the demand of markets, as much of Canadian society is. Instead, they desire to be given handouts in the form of certain people being funded to receive their services, which partially explains criticism of the cuts.

Article content

Article content

An answer to the second question is less obvious. It could be an ideological basis that Ottawa sees fit to fund the services for new migrants. It could also be that the government believes it will receive less criticism from those who oppose funding the services if they do it than vice versa. Regardless of the answer, there is little reason the government should be acting in the interests of certain groups when its purpose is to act in the interests of all the people it serves. The case could be made that it is in the public interest for people who honestly require mental health services to have them funded by the government. However, this is not the current state in Canada. Only services which are deemed “medically necessary” are publicly funded, which means Canada does not have universal mental health care. So, not only is the government acting in special interests when it should not, but it is not serving its own citizens to the same degree it serves migrants.

Article content

A further concern is the potential for hospitals to become further overcrowded with people if refugee illnesses are left untreated. This argument leaves a simple answer: cut the number of refugees accepted to Canada. One, this will prevent or alleviate further overcrowding in hospitals. Second, it will prevent the Canadian taxpayer from being further burdened with the bills of people who are not citizens. In fact, it is reported that an estimated $16.7 million will be saved in 2026-2027 by the recent cuts made by Ottawa. Third, it will assist the current immigration crisis in Canada, which has only been deepened by the high refugee numbers.

Article content

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with notions such as compassion. However, attempts to substitute strong public policy for compassionate public policy only hurts Canadians; the very people the government is supposed to serve and protect. If Ottawa seeks to universalize mental health services, they may have a case, but the treatment of Canadian citizens should never be less than the treatment of certain groups; especially a group that are not citizens.

Article content

Special to National Post

Article content